Lurker > EPR-radar

snake_5036 posted...

Even ignoring this, I look at how much plastic my work site throws away every day, plastic that could easily be recycled and isn't contaminated, and it's probably more than my house uses in a year. Putting climate change on the individual instead of on corpos is the biggest scam the industry ever did.

This.

The only rational path to dealing with climate change is serious policy at the international level. Of course that's a really difficult problem to deal with fairly, but that difficulty is not an excuse to do fuck-all, which is pretty much what's happening.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

even when I was a kid I thought it was dumb to impeach someone for something personal as an affair. My teacher brought up the point that "if our president can't even be faithful to their wife how can we trust them to be faithful to our country?"

Well, the Republican pigfuckers that impeached Clinton had their own affairs (or worse), as everyone should have suspected even back then.

But Newt's excuse for his affair (I forget which one, there have been many) remains an all-time favorite -- "I love the US so much and work so hard as a public servant that I just has to cheat on my wife" (paraphrased).

TheShadowViper posted...

His actual crime was perjury, which he was absolutely guilty of.

I definitely think setting a standard for presidents starting with him that such behavior was unacceptable in the modern age would have been a good thing. I'm not sure impeachment was the penalty he deserved, but he definitely should have been penalized.

People constantly refer to the crimes of Presidents like Nixon as if that should be a get out of jail free card for modern presidents. At some point you have to say "we got to be better, these are the new standards".

I find it impossible to take perjury seriously in the context of a Republican fishing expedition where questions were asked that never should have been asked, and that was my feeling back then as well.

The most I will concede is that "fuck off" would have been a better response by Bill Clinton to the fishing expedition than lying.

jefffan posted...

Christians: *screech about family values*

Trump: Yeah i dont give a fuck about my wife finding out.

If you're Melania how do you stay with a man who doesn't care and has never cared about you? How do you not have enough self respect to leave years ago?

$$$$$$$$$

CrimsonGear80 posted...

OK but i want to hear what the TC thinks.

That's pointless. It will just be clown honking noises.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

There's no real difference between these two possibilities. They are both equally offensive, and those who act like fascists online for the lulz usually end up being real fascists soon enough.

ShotgunSilencer posted...

Omg this. Hearing trump talk reminds me so much of the bullshit my grandfather would say. He would start talking and my dad and I would give each other a look like "here we go"
Just delusional rambling nonsense

That's literally the kindest thing anyone can say about Trump, and even this totally disqualifies him from being president.

But we're stuck with Satan's asshole running for president against because the GOP is a shit-pit fundamentally incapable of (and not at all interested in) policing itself.

Republicans actually used to have standards. E.g., the MS governor race in 1991 had David Duke as the GOP general election candidate who got this smackdown from GHW Bush, then president:

When someone has a long record, an ugly record, of racism and bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign. So I believe David Duke is an insincere charlatan. I believe he's attempting to hoodwink the voters of Louisiana. I believe he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for.

Very few people in the GOP these days can muster the decency needed to make a statement like this vs. Trump and the other raging bigots in the party.

I saw it long ago. What I dislike about it is that the whole premise of the movie is based on eugunics.

What's valuable about this movie is the idea that stupidity (almost entirely willful and culturally transmitted, TYVM) is a real threat.

I don't know about this. It really is pretty damn bleak to always feel homely.

DnDer posted...

If capitalism can't do it, do you really think the government can? </s>

Republicans are fascists, and fascists are incompetent (but they don't care).

For people like this witch, it will suffice to have fascist laws on the books to be arbitrarily and capriciously enforced against anyone the fascists in charge don't like at that moment. Plus social conservative assholes would love to proclaim via Federal legislation that women are nothing more than baby-dispensing appliances with a secondary fuck hole function.

Gritty posted...

Its crazy how hes comically evil

A literal comic book villain written to be as totally omni-shitty as Trump would almost certainly be rejected by editors on the grounds of being too one-dimensional.

Putin lies almost as much as Republicans do.

ToteAll posted...

Compassion opens way more doors than judgement, it's that simple.

"Compassion" for Nazis. LOL.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I love reading online bragging from internet "smart guys" about their enormous IQ scores. Their obliviousness to the fact that they beclown themselves by doing this is very entertaining.

Vicious_Dios posted...

Weird post.

I can see why you think judging someone based on a demonstrated bad character is weird.

Ulfar posted...

The Trump family is literal herpes.

That's far too benign.

If the intended problem statement is this:

A plane has a 50% chance of crashing each time it flies. It is flown repeatedly until it crashes. Person X is a passenger on exactly one of these flights. The first flight has 1 passenger and the number of passengers doubles each time. What is their chance of dying?

Then we have a classic case of a vile math pun.

If "chance of dying" is taken to mean "conditional probability of dying on plane flight n, given that the plane has made n-1 trips", that is just 1/2. That's the risk any passenger takes when boarding that plane, no matter what has gone before.

If "chance of dying" is taken to mean "unconditional probability of being one of the dead in this fact pattern", then we get that series 1/2 + (1/4)(2/3) + (1/8)(4/7) etc.

Toonstrack posted...

The fact that they've been doing this since he was 11 doesnt suddenly become ok now that he's legally an adult regardless what he chooses to do.

Its scummy behavior.

And its not even like he was participating in politics then. I could maybe even see that. But no, I've never even heard this kid speak.

That's why my post didn't say (or imply) anything about past attacks on Barron Trump.

The point is that now that he is visibly aligning with that cesspit of Satan known as the Republican party, he is completely fair game.

BewmHedshot posted...

This infinite sum converges to about .8033. So you're only mostly fucked.

That's another way to see that calculation can't be correct. Anyone repeatedly riding that plane dies with probability one.

masterbarf posted...

My (correct) answer assumes each passenger is a unique individual. All that matters is that you are one of the total population.

You take one trip on the plane, and there are 1000 other people on it. Your chance of death is 50%.

You take a second trip on the same plane, having survived the first trip, and this time there are 1,000,000 other people on that plane. Your chance of dying in that second trip is still 50%.

It really is that simple.

Toonstrack posted...

Its worse what a bunch of people old enough to be his dad/mom/etc are and have been saying about him online and how they've been projected emotions and actions onto him since he was around 11 almost entirely because of who he was born to.

That argument just disappeared -- anyone serving as a tool for this Republican party as an adult or near-adult is fair game.

masterbarf posted...

The way you worded it, it is 50%.

I'll answer it based on how I think it was meant to be.

In 1/2 of scenarios, 1/1 passengers die. That's you. You're already dead half the time.

In 1/4 of scenarios, 2/3 passengers die. (First passenger makes it, the next two die).

in 1/8 of scenarios, 4/7 passengers die.

In 1/16 of scenarios, 8/15 passengers die.

I think you get it.

So to calculate the odds of you dying, you add (1/2) + (1/4 * 2/3) + (1/8 * 4/7) + (1/16 * 8/15) + ...

or

1/2 + 1/6 + 1/14 + 1/30 + 1/62 + 1/126 + 1/254 + 1/510 + ...

The numbers will continue to get smaller, but you are fucked.

You've fallen for the misdirection in the OP. For any one person taking one or more trips on the plane, the number of other passengers is completely irrelevant.

The number of passengers only matters for questions like "What's the expected number of deaths in this fact pattern?"

LightningThief posted...

Related note, one of the reason she dislikes Trump is because he failed to build the wall.

This. The only problem Coulter has with Trump is that Trump is not enough of a Nazi for her.

Delirious_Beard posted...

washed up nazi barbie at it again

Her whole career is being an obnoxious bigot to monetize the resulting controversy.

These days that model isn't working so well, since obnoxious bigotry is just generic Republican.

SHRlKE posted...

I mistyped it. The original question is your friend rides the plane. What are the chances he died. Not you ride the plane. I think that changes things.

That changes nothing, because the question remains vague on how many times whoever (you or your friend) ride the plane.

And even if this number is specified, everything is trivial. E.g., one plane trip, 1/2 chance of dying, two trips, 3/4 chance of dying, three trips, 7/8 chance of dying etc.

The number of passengers increasing on each trip remains completely irrelevant.

ForsakenHermit posted...

This isn't mask off. This is throwing the mask into a tear in the fabric of spacetime to destroy it completely in a way that violates the conservation of energy.

Except that Coulter never had a mask to begin with. She has been a hard-core racist bigot (and every other kind of bigot) for a very long line.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

It definitely stems from them just being plain old mouth-drooling morons, considering you have to be an idiot to take Trump as your client at this point.

This. Every Trump lawyer is a grade-A, 100% certified moron. The man is an uncontrollable pain in the ass as a client, he is guilty of everything he is charged with (and much more), and he doesn't even pay his fucking bills.

Cemith posted...

Which, as much as it pisses me off, is quite possible thanks for that one specific fucking juror.

Sure, a mistrial because of a stupid fucking Trumpist on the jury would be annoying.

But a mistrial is not a verdict of not guilty.

That means the state can just try the case again to a new jury. I like to imagine Trump's reaction if that were to happen.

If a person rides the plane once, their chance of dying in a crash is 50%. Easy peasy, end of story.

This looks more like a trick question full of irrelevant details than any kind of real math problem.

StealThisSheen posted...

They're not just okay with it, they support it.

This. Tails is a rancid deplorable bigot, and that's actually a dominant view in the Republican party.

Robot2600 posted...

there are fates worse than death. that's what's banned, everything worse than death. torture. phosphorus. mustard gas. etc.

There are also the unstated rules of war -- such as don't go after each others' leaders with assassination hit squads with full state level support.

LOL at the amazing super power of online clowns to misread the simplest things.

LoZguy709 posted...

Haha I understand where you're coming from because I don't have much faith in my fellow citizens either, but if people are going to have their rights stripped away from them, I think it would need to be done somewhat gradually.

I originally welcomed Trump's candidacy 2016, because I thought the GOP strategy back then of slowly whittling away at democracy was certain to work long term, and any disruption of that plan seemed good.

Now the reality is that Trump's ham-fisted and incredibly blatant assault on democracy is way the fuck too likely to succeed.

Rotterdammerung posted...

Oh man, this place is practically dripping with trust and safety since the changes.

Nothing inspires "trust and safety" more than the admin letting one of this site most notorious trolls back via an exception to the normal rules.

"alpha", "beta", "omega" etc.

PoopPotato posted...

Pretty much any corporate lingo.

Circle back
Piggyback
Put a pin in it
Get after it

See also:

Rightsizing
Human resources
The entirety of any statement by an executive compensation committee

LoZguy709 posted...

With Bush v. Gore, the margin of defeat, in terms of the electoral college, was not significant enough to bypass SC fuckery. When they can pin it down to one at-the-time swing state, it makes their job a lot easier. The hypothetical scenario in which states just have their own electors decide the favored presidential candidate is more drastic, even if it could fall within Constitutional framework, because voters today are not going to just accept it and move on with that being the new standard.

Republican voters will, as long as it means power for one of their own. And that's precisely the problem. If Trump were a lone fascist he would not be a threat. Trump the fascist with the backing of millions of fascist voters and hundreds of Republican fascist fellow travelers in various positions of power is a mortal threat.

hockeybabe89 posted...

You literally said people changed their tune. Sorry I paraphrased and didn't use your exact words!

Of course people changed their tune. Granted, that was the change from suspecting Fandom et al. were up to no good to having it thoroughly confirmed that Fandom et al. are up to no good.

The real mystery here is why anyone would try to make a big deal out of such a reasonable change. It's as if a substantial fraction of the population is simply allergic to revising opinions as new information comes in.

Strider102 posted...

I've been saying Fandom doesn't care about the boards or the users and that they'll slowly destroy the site since finding out they now own the site.

This, except "slowly" is looking iffy.

Horith posted...

Bizarrely enough, if the NPR article on this is to be believed, Trump was warning her not to pull the trigger on this.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/08/1249484871/bid-to-oust-speaker-johnson-fails

Trump has a low animal cunning that serves him well in intra-party Republican politics.

divot1338 posted...

The Republicans gleefully did it for George W Bush.

Then they appointed two of the fucking guys responsible to the US Senate and the Supreme Court.

Republicans have been diligent about rewarding their own crooks for a long time. One of the many outrageous things about Reagan nominating Bork for SCOTUS is that Bork was literally Nixon's hatchet man for the Saturday Night Massacre of Watergate.

thekosmicfool posted...

And Trump repeatedly said he takes zero responsibility for anything bad that happened during his presidency. What do you have to say about that?

"When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled..."

IdiotMachine posted...

lol

Im actually a registered democrat but thanks for assuming.

Assuming you are telling the truth, I don't care how you (or anyone else) is registered. All that matters is how you vote in the general election, and that makes you a Republican.

Of course, there's also the further evidence of you spouting Republican talking points.

LoZguy709 posted...

It's really hard for me to see even your typical voter just being okay with the Supreme Court retroactively changing the results of an election (in effect) by retroactively changing the rules (in effect and in practice) and majorly changing the electoral process in this country. At that point, there would be no reason for someone to cast a vote for their favored presidential candidate, as the state leaders from past years' ballots would be the ones to ultimately make the call, regardless of where the votes fall.

There is absolutely no constitutional right in the US for citizens to vote for president. The only reason such votes happen is that the state legislatures got tired of having a presidential election tire fire in their chambers every 4 years, so they punted their state's electoral votes to elections.

So the Sleazy Six on the supreme court would have much more legal justification than is usual for their antics if they were to get a case from a state under Republican rule where the state legislature tries to overrule an election in Trump's favor.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Expel her now

Haha. That would require Republicans acting to reduce their power, which will never happen.